Next week I'm going to record a classical string quintet (2vl-vla-cl-bass) and I have some doubts about the best miking technique to use. I'm definitely using two spaced omnis as main stereo pair, that's sure, I like this array very much for this type of instrumental group and room (I already know the hall where the recording is going to be made).
The problem that IMHO this two spaced omis technique has is, that some details like attacks, presence, are lost, and I'd like to keep them, but I wouldn't like to spot mic each instrument. On other ocassions for a similar group (string quartet) I've used the main omni pair plus:
- A second ORTF pair placed very close to the quartet. It worked more or less satisfactory (Didn't sound bad, but it could sound better).
- Two spot mics, one for the violins and another one for the viola/cello. This thechnique is used by a radio technician here, I like the presence and detail that is obtained in this way, but I found that the spot mics had somehow an adverse effect on the final stereo image (And this time there will be five instruments).
For this recording I've thought about three cardioids at a 90° degree angle from each other placed in the centre of the semicircle formed by the musicians, 3 or 4 feet above them (L/R mics at 180°, at a distance of more or less 15-20 inches from each other, plus a center mic at 90° placed about 10 inches forward), but I'm not sure if I'm going to become phase problems with this array.
Or should I simply spot mic each instrument? I wouldn't like to do this, but perhaps It's a solution.
Do you know a good way of keeping the detail in this type of recording without having too many problems with phase, stereo imaging, etc (Given that I'd like to keep the spaced omnis as main pair?
Thank you very much!
Here is my pinhead take on the problem: 1) keep it simple and 2) chamber quartets were not written to be heard up close and personal. I would go for the AB omnis or ORTF. It will keep you from introducing phasing issues and keep the sound the way the audience would hear it normally.
Williams does describe a three card array which would be just what you are looking for, however. I have tried it and find it works well and is somewhat similar in what it "hears" to MS.
Next week I'm going to record a classical string quintet (2vl-vla-cl-bass) and I have some doubts about the best miking technique to use. I'm definitely using two spaced omnis as main stereo pair, that's sure, I like this array very much for this type of instrumental group and room (I already know the hall where the recording is going to be made).
The problem that IMHO this two spaced omis technique has is, that some details like attacks, presence, are lost, and I'd like to keep them, but I wouldn't like to spot mic each instrument. On other ocassions for a similar group (string quartet) I've used the main omni pair plus:
- A second ORTF pair placed very close to the quartet. It worked more or less satisfactory (Didn't sound bad, but it could sound better).
I agree about spaced omnis - they have great ambiance and bass and weight, but can lack crispness and sparkle.
One approach is to put the omnis and a pair of cards (ORTF, NOS, DIN, depending on the situation) on the same stereo bar....Tony Faulkner has written about this type of setup using wide cardioids, and a number of Gearslutz folks (including boojum!) have used it and posted samples.
In my own limited experiments, I've been pretty happy with it; you get a better stereo image that omnis alone can provide, and more snap. Phasing doesn't seem to be an issue, and you can adjust the balance between the two pairs to suit the room, performance, taste, etc.
If you search this site for "Faulkner array" and/or "boojum/jnorman array" you'll find a number of samples.
boojum
Thanks for your answer. Yes, I agree with you in that for this kind of music a simple mic array works usually better that other complicated lots-of-mics-and-one-channel-for-each-player solutions.
Maybe another option could be a ORTF main stereo pair and two spaces omnis placed back, just like a modified Decca tree.
I've searched some information about your Williams' three cardioid array and it looks interesting, I had never tried it. Luckily it's not a live performance and I'm going to have some time for experiments, I can try a couple of different arrays in the rehearsals.
I'll try and post some samples...
If your goal is to add a bit of detail, attack and presence to a main AB omni pair, then do spot each instrument. It will give you the best flexibility in the mix. Though I don't particularly love them, the KM140 (or 184) are great for exactly this role.
Your setup will be a bit more complicated (extra mics, extra stands...) and you might end up using only a tiny amount of each spot mic in your final mix, but it should work well.
BTW, I tend to prefer Blumlein (or actually XY if the acoustics are not great) in the center of a semi circle formed by the musicians. for small ensembles, I prefer the precise imaging of closer coincident pairs, plus you get results that are free of phase issues. If you can, as a test, try a blumlein pair...
Wish you success with your recordings
One approach is to put the omnis and a pair of cards (ORTF, NOS, DIN, depending on the situation) on the same stereo bar....Tony Faulkner has written about this type of setup using wide cardioids, and a number of Gearslutz folks (including boojum!) have used it and posted samples.
Good luck!
Thank you for your answer!
As described in my last reply I've used sometimes a kind of modified decca tree with two flank omnis and an ORTF pair in the centre and placed forward. I'm going to search some samples of this Faulkner array (It looks basically the same that the modified Decca tree, but with all the mics aligned in one bar), I've never used it, but I've seen (But not heard) this array being used with symphonic orchestras.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of placing the ORTF pair aligned with the omnis or placing them forward in chamber music? For an orchestra I was told that the advanced central pair give better sense of depth, but this is chamber music, and maybe this Faulkner array is a better solution here. I'm going to try...
Thank you.
The Faulkner array allows you to balance the two sets of mics and get some focus that way.
The jnorman/boojum array is a quick and dirty in that it works well, easily. You can balance out the omni's against the ORTF as pleases you. I have also tried it with MS + omni. This works well, too, and presents a smaller image to interrupt the audience view.
I run it with the DPA 4061's according to the Williams chart on spacing omni's and this has worked well. I know that not everyone agrees with Williams' observations but that is the nature of what this field, and this board, is about.
A Blumlein or XY would be sweet, too, as posted above.
If your goal is to add a bit of detail, attack and presence to a main AB omni pair, then do spot each instrument. It will give you the best flexibility in the mix.
Find a pair (pattern) that gets you a good ensemble sound and then spot what is missing. If you wind up with ORTF(card or widecard) I would use an additional pair (I like omnis for this purpose) for room/ambi.
__________________ www.symphonicsound.com
"The secret of life, though, is falling down seven times and get up eight times." Paulo Coelho
This is Ravel's "Introduction and Allegro," a spirally, ethereal piece with violin/viola/cello/harp, and flute/clarinet for the real breezy, swirly parts.
Three mics are in a triangle, roughly twenty feet from each other, like you'd drawn a pentagram on the floor, but the ensemble in it, and then placed the mic stands on select points. Facing the group from the front, an Avant CK40 stereo mic, and to either side of the group, two MXL 2003a's facing inward.
The classical stringed instruments don't really "make a sound" so much as they "fill up a space with a sound," that's why it's always awkward and frustrating to try to spot mic them-- you'll get the "transmission" but you won't get the "message," almost. Plus, these people are playing "as a community," it's really a communal sound they're striving for.
__________________
Mountaintop Studios
~the peak of perfection~
Petersburgh NY 12138
I like to record with as few mics as possible and I've learned along the way that a DACS Clarity Micamp is very punchy. Gordon Model 5 micamp preserves microdynamics very accurately but it is natural, not API-punchy like DACS.
Also, some omnis are more compliant than others so they capture microdynamic transients better than most. Josephson's 617SET, for example, excels at it. I recall hearing Fred Forssell say DPA's large diaphragm omnis are very good for this reason.
With the right gear one omni mic (i.e. MS) or two omni mics (AB) can capture all the natural dynamics in an ensemble; spot mics are rarely needed.
This is Ravel's "Introduction and Allegro," a spirally, ethereal piece with violin/viola/cello/harp, and flute/clarinet for the real breezy, swirly parts.
Cool capture of a sweet performance! I can only listen over cans right now; it's very immersive, like being in the midst of the group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson
The classical stringed instruments don't really "make a sound" so much as they "fill up a space with a sound"
Never thought of it quite that way before - well said.
If you have a Jecklin disk, plop those omnis on it and give it a try. They will tighten up the imaging, likely helping attacks, etc to have a bit more punch.
__________________
Michael Hughes
TTL Audio Productions
chamber quartets were not written to be heard up close and personal.
Actually, they were written only for close and personal use. That's why it's called "chamber" music. Most of this was not even written for an audience, but rather for (and sometimes by) the musicians themselves. This is the Haydn/Mozart era. Moving on through music history we can see chamber music having a listen-only audience too, but never was this type of music intended to be played in concert halls seating 2,000 people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogaju
If your goal is to add a bit of detail, attack and presence to a main AB omni pair, then do spot each instrument. It will give you the best flexibility in the mix. Though I don't particularly love them, the KM140 (or 184) are great for exactly this role.
Your setup will be a bit more complicated (extra mics, extra stands...) and you might end up using only a tiny amount of each spot mic in your final mix, but it should work well.
+1.
This is the safe way to do it. You don't need to use all the spots in the mix, but rather place them than miss them. Focus on getting a good balance (wet/dry and ensemble-wise) from the main pair. Spots can give you presence, clarity, attack, or they might just feed a reverb if you feel someone needs a bit more than what's there.
Any half decent SDC will do, however for strings I tend to prefer Neumann 184 and Schoeps MK4 over my Oktava 012s (go-to brass spots, though!)
__________________
Microphones always make me sound louder and better! -- Guitar Girl
I've had success with AB Omni pairs, with an ORTF pair rigged in the middle, all on the same stereo bar. None of the issues with phasing you might expect, as long as the stereo bar isn't too close to the instruments.
In smaller rooms though, you may well be better off with spot mics kept very low in the mix...
I've had success with AB Omni pairs, with an ORTF pair rigged in the middle, all on the same stereo bar. None of the issues with phasing you might expect, as long as the stereo bar isn't too close to the instruments.
In smaller rooms though, you may well be better off with spot mics kept very low in the mix...
I would go for the AB omnis with a semicoincident pair in the middle to capture the sound of the entire group. But I agree with you, maybe I should consider AB+spots for this hall (small, with place for around 150 persons). Here comes the problem... How can I put five spots in so a small group with the instrumentists placed close together without coming into a phase and leakage nightmare? The two bass sounding instruments, cello and double bass are placed together too.
BTW, I've attached a sample of a concert I've recorded some months ago. It's an amateur sax quartet. I used two omnis (Oktava MK012) in AB at 45 cm, placed 5-6 feet away from the musicians and 4-5 feet above his heads, plus only two spots (AKG C391), one for the soprano and alto saxes and another one for the tenor and bariton saxes. As said above, I've learned this technique from a radio technician, but I'm not convinced of the effect of the spots in the final stereo image. The recording is a bit dry, the hall was very dry and I've added no reverb or post-processing effects to this sample, I'd like to know your opinion, possible mistakes you see, how could I have made it sound better...
I favor omni spots myself. With a quartet you will only need two or three between the musicians. Phase or leakage has not really been a negative issue in my experience when it comes to balancing the spots. Yes there will be leakage, but isolation is not the goal of the classical engineer.
On small ensembles, I'm not a big fan of the "acoustic zoom" approaches like ORTF inside omni. They are really better for providing reach inside an ensemble when you are working without spots. For a string quartet, I would stick with just ORTF or other stereo pair for the mains and spot with omnis if you feel the need.
Phase and leakage is something you either try and combat, or embrace when it comes to spot mics in my experience. Omnis are good as spots because although there may be more of instrument B in instrument A's microphone than you wanted, at least it still sounds like instrument B. With directional microphones, the off-axis colouration present in EVERY microphone can become a really major issue quite quickly, in small and large ensembles...
We have begun to record today. Room acoustics were far worse as I thought (The hall wasn't intended for classical concerts), there is a strange resonance in the low mids, and the reverberation makes that this arrives out of phase to the omnis.
Luckily I had placed mics for two alternative setups, omni pair+DIN pair in one bar and spot mics. I think I'm going to use the DIN pair with some spots for presence, I fear the omnis are rather useless in this hall I fear (Maybe I still can use them lowpassed below the resonant frequency to give some roominess to the basses).
This is my first impression after a quick hear through the headphones after the session. Next week I'll upload some samples.
Actually, they were written only for close and personal use. That's why it's called "chamber" music. Most of this was not even written for an audience, but rather for (and sometimes by) the musicians themselves.
PK, you are right. Write it off to geriatric brain freeze. Thanks for waking me up.
Here are three short samples of the quintet. The first is the omnis pair. The second is the DIN pair, and the third the omnis plus the spot mics.
I placed the omnis 50 cm away with the DIN pair in the centre of the same bar, but both pairs are totally out ot phase, as result I couldn't test the suggested four mics array. I don't know if I made something wrong or if the weird resonance of the hall caused the phase problem.
I personally don't like the cards version (And I think that the used AKG 391 are not the best mics for this type of recording, I find them a bit harsh for the strings sound). I personally would go for the third version, but I'd like to know some opinions.
What could I do to improve the sound of this mix?
EDIT: I've added a fourth one sample a pair of messages below.
Sample #2 sounds most balanced in terms of volume and presence. In #1 and #3 the violins appear significantly more distant than viola and cello, and I hear the troublesome room.
I'd try to use #2 with some nice reverb tail added (feed the reverb pre-fader from spots).
If DIN and omnis are "completely out of phase" maybe one pair has inverted polarity outputs.
Based on a quick listen through a couple of computer speakers tacked onto an iMac (with no response below 100 Hz). I prefer the spaced omnis (#2) over the others. The mics in no.1 don't do the violins any favors. And to my ears, there is some lack of detail across the board in no.3. Maybe phase alignment or time delay, but after a couple of listens back and forth, no.2 always sounds "clearer".
Just tried again listening through some SRH940s and now I still like no.2 for the violin balance, but think the cello and bass sound better on no. 3. Relative to the low instruments, the violins sound more distant so the impression of a tight ensemble is changed. Maybe a little more spot on the violins or a little less on the bass?
Sample #2 sounds most balanced in terms of volume and presence. In #1 and #3 the violins appear significantly more distant than viola and cello, and I hear the troublesome room.
I'd try to use #2 with some nice reverb tail added (feed the reverb pre-fader from spots).
If DIN and omnis are "completely out of phase" maybe one pair has inverted polarity outputs.
I had tried changing the polarity of the DIN pair and yes, it seemed like their output was inverted. But with them in phase with the omnis the weird resonance of the bass in the room at about 200-300 Hz gets multiplied making the mix useless unless you cut all the frequencies below 400 Hz in the DIN pair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus 7
Based on a quick listen through a couple of computer speakers tacked onto an iMac (with no response below 100 Hz). I prefer the spaced omnis (#2) over the others. The mics in no.1 don't do the violins any favors. And to my ears, there is some lack of detail across the board in no.3. Maybe phase alignment or time delay, but after a couple of listens back and forth, no.2 always sounds "clearer".
Just tried again listening through some SRH940s and now I still like no.2 for the violin balance, but think the cello and bass sound better on no. 3. Relative to the low instruments, the violins sound more distant so the impression of a tight ensemble is changed. Maybe a little more spot on the violins or a little less on the bass?
I agree with you in that the best balanced is #2 (the DIN pair), but I wouldn't like to lose the spaciousness of the omnis. The spot mix is only a try, Delay is set by measuring the distance between each spot and the main pair, I'm going to check the phase alignment of the spots.
And the bass had no spot at all, there was a weird resonance in the room that accentuated and negatively coloured the sound of the bass. The problem was there more evident that in the recording, but in the recording one can still notice the bad sounding room (And the carpets all over the floor didn't help the violins).
Just for testing, I've made one mix of the Omnis and the DIN pair, inverting the phase and cutting the frequencies below 250 Hz in the DIN pair to avoid adding still more dirty reverberation to the bass, both at 0 dB.
Here is the sample
The 250 Hz cut does improve the clarity in the mid and upper voices, but it so thins the bass that it's probably not going to sit well with your bass player. It's turning a meaty performance into a "whimpy" one. Sorry, I know that's not much help and is something you already know.
Have you run run this past the performers? In the end their opinions matter much more than ours. They are likely most concerned that each instrumental line is heard and are probably less concerned about the room sound and will understand the limitations of performing and recording in a less than great space.
Last week I recorded a string quartet in a small church which had a beautiful, smooth, uniform reverb. Unfortunately, it also had an air handler that had a broad spectrum of rumble from 10 Hz to about 200 Hz that could not be turned off during the performance. I used a 24 dB./octave filter at 50 Hz and a shelf of -4 dB at 110 Hz, but that was the most I could get away with without adversely affecting the cello sound. The program included some works with very soft passages, so in places the rumble was audible. I was not happy with the final mix (I used a pair of ORTF MKH-8040s, a closer pair of DC-196s and a spaced AB pair of MKH-8020s). Anything that included enough room ambience had too much rumble. Anyway, the musicians didn't care at all. They just wanted to be able to hear the string voices properly blended and balanced.
One thing that this thread highlights above everything to do with microphone choices, is the correct location for the recording. As you've discovered, the wrong location is simply a world of pain and there's very little you can do to make things work after the event. This is why, in the UK at least, classical recording engineers have a small set of locations which they know work well and these are the ones that you'll see being used again and again. Having watched Tony Faulkner set up for a string sextet recording for Hyperion at St George's, Brandon Hill in Bristol, I realised that most of the work was done positioning the musicians and the microphones for the perfect balance and then leaving it alone to let the players and the acoustics combine to make a beautiful sound. What Tony did and continues to do, is capture that sound perfectly and with the minimum of fuss.
+ another 1. If I had to use spots on a string quintet I'd know I'm in the wrong venue. And if I couldn't balance them with two mikes I'd know they can't play very well, either.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
